By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
RockSmith372 on 17 June 2010
Edit Thread
highwaystar101 said:
Jordahn said:

The bottom line here is that everyone is religious whether they admit it or not.  Having a religion simply means believing in something that gives some kind of meaning/motivation in our lives.  That applies to ALL of us.  But in regards to creationism, there are facts that have given validation to a relatively young earth as opposed to the conventional billion of years of evolution.  There is no fact or science that has proven that evolution is true.  Believing in an unproven theory is just as religious as believing that creationism is fact.


I don't know whether this is poe or not, it just seems a little too, er, medieval. But I'll answer it anyway...

...

There are absolutely no facts that point to a young Earth; all of the facts point to one answer, the Earth is 4.54 Billion years old. This has been tested repeatedly and verified by many independent parties using a variety of methods.

The "evidence" behind young Earth creationism is on par with the evidence for geocentricism and flat Earth myths, i.e. none. The "evidence" that is presented is not valid in any sense, it is always speculation.

The vast majority of young Earth creationists see speculation such as "the speed of radioactive decay could be dropping, and light could be slowing down" as evidence. This is not evidence in any sense, there are no signs whatsoever that radioactive decay happens at different speeds due to a change in the laws of physics and there is no evidence that light is, ever has, or ever will slow down.

And yet people are ready to believe the lies that "Answers in Genesis" and "Conservapedia" tells them because it fits with their predetermined answer. Well, unfounded speculation would not fly in any other environment.

Either the evidence agrees with your statement or it doesn't. If you have to change the goalposts as it were so that the evidence agrees with your beliefs, then you are lying to yourself. If you have to change the goalposts, then you have not got the correct answer.

...

There is no fact or science that proves evolution true? Give me a break.

Again you have been lied to and you are spreading the lie. No Science that proves evolutions? How about evolutionary Biology? A whole science dedicated to evolution, and one of the most well established fields of science. The fields has literally millions of researchers the world over, whose work is peer reviewed and obtained from observational and testable means. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming to be quite frank... Just go on to Google scholar, search "evolution", and see the millions of papers published on the subject too see just how overwhelming it really is.

...

Oh, and I love (hate) the creationist misinterpretation of the word "theory". You guys either refuse to understand the definition of theory, or just plain outright have been lied to about the definition. I can tell straight away by the way you wrote "unproven theory", the fact that you have used such a blatant oxymoron and you are unaware is just astonishing.

Do you realise that a theory is an answer derived from the available facts that have been presented, and has to be falsifiable so that the answer can continually be better defined into the correct model?

In other words, a theory is based on proven facts, and  facts that are ever improving in accuracy at that.

What's sad is that this is like the fourth time I've explained this in this thread alone.


Ya, if you look about my response, I basically had to tell the same thing over and over again about how evolution is a fact such a DNA sequencing, transitional fossils, radiometric dating, morphology, etc.